behave F. Baker, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track X. Li, Ed.
Expires: August 25, 2009 C. Bao, Ed.
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
February 21, 2009
Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Abstract
This note describes a framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation. This is
in the context of replacing NAT-PT, which was deprecated by RFC 4966,
and to enable networks to have IPv4 and IPv6 coexist in a somewhat
rational manner while transitioning to an IPv6 network.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Why translation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Translation objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4. Transition Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5. Expected uses of translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5.1. Connection of IPv4-only islands to an IPv6-only
network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5.2. Connection of IPv6-only islands to an IPv4-only
network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5.3. Connecting IPv4-only devices with IPv6-only devices . 14
1.5.4. ISP-supported connections between IPv4-only
networks and IPv6-only networks . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1. Translation Scenario and Operation Mode . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1. Translation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2. Operation Mode of the Translator . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2. Embedded Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1. LIR prefix versus Well-Known prefix . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2. Prefix length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.3. Suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.4. Recommdations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3. Translation components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.1. DNS Translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2. Stateless Translation - IPv4-embedded IPv6
addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.3. Stateful translation - IPv4-related IPv6 address . . . 25
2.3.4. Translation gateway technologies . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4. Translation in operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.1. Impact Outside the Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.5. Unsolved problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
1. Introduction
This note describes a framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation. This is
in the context of replacing NAT-PT [RFC2766], which was deprecated by
[RFC4966], and to enable networks to have IPv4 and IPv6 coexist in a
somewhat rational manner while transitioning to an IPv6-only network.
Deprecation of NAT-PT wasn't intended to say that NAT-PT was "bad",
nor did the IETF think that deprecating the technology would stop
people from using it. As with the 1993 deprecation of the RIP
routing protocol at the time the Internet was converting to CIDR, the
point was to inform the community that NAT-PT had operational issues
and was not considered a viable medium or long term strategy for
either coexistence or transition. The point was to encourage network
operators to actually move in the direction of transition.
[RFC4213] describes the IETF's view of the most sensible transition
model. The IETF recommends, in short, that network operators
(transit providers, service providers, enterprise networks, small and
medium business, SOHO and residential customers, and any other kind
of network that may currently be using IPv4) obtain an IPv6 prefix,
turn on IPv6 routing within their networks and between themselves and
any peer, upstream, or downstream neighbors, enable it on their
computers, and use it in normal processing. This should be done
while leaving IPv4 stable, until a point is reached that any
communication that can be carried out could use either protocol
equally well. At that point, the economic justification for running
both becomes debatable, and network operators can justifiably turn
IPv4 off. This process is comparable to that of [RFC4192], which
describes how to renumber a network using the same address family
without a flag day. While running stably with the older system,
deploy the new. Use the coexistence period to work out such kinks as
arise. When the new is also running stably, shift production to it.
When network and economic conditions warrant, remove the old, which
is now no longer necessary.
The question arises: what if that is infeasible due to the time
available to deploy or other considerations? What if the process of
moving a network and its components or customers is starting too late
for contract cycles to effect IPv6 turn-up on important parts at a
point where it becomes uneconomical to deploy global IPv4 addresses
in new services? How does one continue to deploy new services
without balkanizing the network?
This set of documents describes translation as one of the tools
networks might use to facilitate coexistence and ultimate transition.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
1.1. Why translation?
Besides dual stack deployment, there are two fundamental approaches
one could take to interworking between IPv4 and IPv6: tunneling and
translation. One could - and in the 6NET we did - build an overlay
network using the new protocol inside tunnels. Various proposals
take that model, including 6to4 [RFC3056], Teredo [RFC4380], ISATAP
[RFC5214],and DS-Lite [I-D.durand-softwire-dual-stack-lite]. The
advantage of doing so is that the new is enabled to work without
disturbing the old protocol, providing connectivity between users of
the new protocol. There are two disadvantages to tunneling:
o operators of those networks are unable to offer services to users
of the new architecture, and those users are unable to use the
services of the underlying infrastructure - it is just bandwidth,
and
o it doesn't enable new protocol users to communicate with old
protocol users.
As noted, in this work, we look at Internet Protocol translation as a
transition strategy. [RFC4864] forcefully makes the point that many
of the reasons people use Network Address Translators are met as well
by routing or protocol mechanisms that preserve the end to end
addressability of the Internet. What it did not consider is the case
in which there is an ongoing requirement to communicate with IPv4
systems, but configuring IPv4 routing is not in the network
operator's view the most desirable strategy, or is infeasible due to
a shortage of global address space. Translation enables the client
of a network, whether a transit network, an access network, or an
edge network, to access the services of the network and communicate
with other network users regardless of their protocol usage - within
limits. Like NAT-PT, IPv4/IPv6 translation under this rubric is not
a long term support strategy, but it is a medium term coexistence
strategy that can be used to facilitate a long term program of
transition.
1.2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document and other
documents related to it.
CPE: The acronym expands to "Customer Premises Equipment"; in the
context of this document set, it refers to the router in front of
a host, whether in an ISP or other network environment, that
performs some relevant function such as advertising a specific
prefix.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Dual Stack implementation: A Dual Stack implementation, in this
context, comprises an enabled end system stack plus routing in the
network. It implies that two application instances are capable of
communicating using either IPv4 or IPv6 - they have stacks, they
have addresses, and they have any necessary network support
including routing.
IPv4 capable node: A node which has an IPv4 protocol stack. Apart
from the local LAN, where link-local (169.254.0.0/16) addresses
might be used without operational intent, an interface on the node
must be assigned one or more IPv4 addresses for the stack to be
usable.
IPv4 enabled node: A node which has an IPv4 protocol stack and is
assigned one or more IPv4 addresses that are not link-local
(169.254.0.0/16). Both IPv4-only and IPv6/IPv4 nodes are IPv4
enabled.
IPv6 capable node: A node which has an IPv6 protocol stack. Apart
from the local LAN, where link-local (FE80::/64) addresses might
be used without operational intent, an interface on the node must
be assigned or must autoconfigure one or more IPv6 addresses for
the stack to be usable.
IPv6 enabled node: A node which has an IPv6 protocol stack and one
or more IPv6 addresses that are not link-local (FE80::/64). Both
IPv6-only and IPv6/IPv4 nodes are IPv6 enabled.
IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses: They are the IPv6 addresses which have
unique relationship to specific IPv4 addresses. This relationship
is self described by embedding IPv4 address in the IPv6 address.
The IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses are used for both the statesless
and the stateful modes.
IPv4-related IPv6 addresses: They are the IPv6 addresses which have
unique relationship to specific IPv4 addresses. This relationship
is maintained as the states (mapping table between IPv4 address/
transport_port and IPv6 address/transport_port) in the IP/ICMP
translator. The states are session initiated. The IPv4-related
IPv6 addresses are used fo the stateful mode only.
IPv4-only: An IPv4-only implementation, in this context, comprises
an enabled end system stack plus routing in the network. It
implies that two application instances are capable of
communicating using IPv4, but not IPv6 - they have an IPv4 stack,
addresses, and network support including IPv4 routing and
potentially IPv4/IPv4 translation, but some element is missing
that prevents communication using IPv6.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
IPv6-only: An IPv6-only implementation, in this context, comprises
an enabled end system stack plus routing in the network. It
implies that two application instances are capable of
communicating using IPv6, but not IPv4 - they have an IPv6 stack,
addresses, and network support including routing in IPv6, but some
element is missing that prevents communication using IPv4.
LIR Prefix: The IPv6 prefix assigned by the network operator for
embedding IPv4 addresses into IPv6 addresses. In this case, each
network running a translator will create a representation of the
whole IPv4 address space in the IPv6 address space.
LIR: See Local Internet Registry.
Local Internet Registry: A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an
organization which has received an IP address allocation from a
Regional Internet Registry (RIR), and which may assign parts of
this allocation to its own internal network or those of its
customers. An LIR is thus typically an Internet service provider
or an enterprise network.
Physical IPv4 address pool: Zero or more IPv4 addresses used by the
translator in stateful translation.
State: "State" refers to dynamic information that is stored in a
network element. For example, if two systems are connected by a
TCP connection, each stores information about the connection,
which is called "connection state". In this context, the term
refers to dynamic correlations between IP addresses on either side
of a translator, or {IP Address, Transport type, transport port
number} tuples on either side of the translator. Of stateful
algorithms, there are at least two major flavors depending on the
kind of state they maintain:
Hidden state: the existence of this state is unknown outside the
network element that contains it.
Known state: the existence of this state is known by other
network elements.
Stateful Translation: A translation algorithm may be said to
"require state in a network element" or be "stateful" if the
transmission or reception of a packet creates or modifies a data
structure in the relevant network element.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Stateless Translation: A translation algorithm that is not
"stateful" is "stateless". It may require configuration of a
static translation table, or may derive its needed information
algorithmically from the messages it is translating.
Well-Known Prefix: The IPv6 prefix assigned by IANA for embedding
IPv4 addresses into IPv6 addresses. In this case, there would be
a single representation of a public IPv4 address in the IPv6
address space.
1.3. Translation objectives
In any translation model, there is a question of objectives.
Ideally, one would like to make any system and any application
running on it able to "talk with" - exchange datagrams supporting
applications - with any other system running the same application
regardless of whether they have an IPv4 stack and connectivity or
IPv6 stack and connectivity. That was the model NAT-PT, and the
things it necessitated led to scaling and operational difficulties.
So the question comes back to what different kinds of connectivity
can be easily supported and what are harder, and what technologies
are needed to at least pick the low-hanging fruit. We observe that
applications today fall into three main categories:
Client/Server Application: Per whatis.com, "'Client/server'
describes the relationship between two computer programs in which
one program, the client, makes a service request from another
program, the server, which fulfills the request." In networking,
the behavior of the applications is that connections are initiated
from client software and systems to server software and systems.
Examples include mail handling between an end user and his mail
system (POP3, IMAP, and MUA->MTA SMTP), FTP, the web, and DNS name
translation.
Peer to Peer Application: Peer to peer applications are those that
transfer information directly, rather than through the use of an
intermediate repository such as a bulletin board or database. In
networking, any system (peer) might initiate a session with any
other system (peer) at any time. These in turn fall broadly into
two categories:
Peer to peer infrastructure applications: Examples of
"infrastructure applications" include SMTP between MTAs,
Network News, and SIP. Any MTA might open an SMTP session with
any other at any time; any SIP Proxy might similarly connect
with any other SIP Proxy. An important characteristic of these
applications is that they use ephemeral sessions - they open
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
sessions when they are needed and close them when they are
done.
Peer to peer file exchange applications: Examples of these
include Limewire, BitTorrent, and UTorrent. These are
applications that open some sessions between systems and leave
them open for long periods of time, and where ephemeral
sessions are important, are able to learn about the reliability
of peers from history or by reputation. They use the long term
sessions to map content availability. Short term sessions are
used to exchange content. They tend to prefer to ask for
content from servers that they find reliable and available.
NAT-PT is an example of a facility with known state - at least two
software components (the data plane translator and the DNS
Application Layer Gateway, which may be implemented in the same or
different systems) share and must coordinate translation state. A
typical IPv4/IPv4 NAT implements an algorithm with hidden state.
Obviously, stateless translation requires less computational overhead
than stateful translation, and less memory to maintain the state,
because the translation tables and their associated methods and
processes exist in a stateful algorithm and don't exist in a
stateless one.
If the key questions are the ability to open connections between
systems, then one must ask who opens connections.
o We need a technology that will enable systems that act as clients
to be able to open sessions with other systems that act as
servers, whether in the IPv6->IPv4 direction or the IPv4->IPv6
direction. Ideally, this is stateless; especially in a carrier
infrastructure, the preponderance of accesses will be to servers,
and this optimizes access to them. However, a stateful algorithm
is acceptable if the complexity is minimized and a stateless
algorithm cannot be constructed.
o We also need a technology that will allow peers to connect with
each other, whether in the IPv6->IPv4 direction or the IPv4->IPv6
direction. Again, it would be ideal if this was stateless, but a
stateful algorithm is acceptable if the complexity is minimized
and a stateless algorithm cannot be constructed. In the case of
infrastructure applications, which know nothing of choosing among
peers by reputation, the IPv4->IPv6 direction is a stronger
requirement. Peer to peer file exchange applications, however,
may be more forgiving - it may well be adequate to make a subset
of IPv4->IPv6 connections work instead of all. (EDITOR'S NOTE: I
would be very interested in comments on this assertion)
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
o We do not need an algorithm that enables clients to connect to
clients, because they don't connect.
The complexity arguments bring us in the direction of hidden state:
if state must be shared between the application and the translator or
between translation components, complexity and deployment issues are
greatly magnified. We would very much prefer that any software
changes be confined to the translator.
1.4. Transition Plan
While the design of IPv4 made it impossible for IPv6 to be compatible
on the wire, the designers intended that it would coexist with IPv4
during a period of transition. The primary mode of coexistence was
dual-stack operation - routers would be dual-stacked so that the
network could carry both address families, and IPv6-capable hosts
could be dual-stack to maintain access to IPv4-only partners. The
goal was that the preponderance of hosts and routers in the Internet
would be IPv6-capable long before IPv4 address space allocation was
completed. At this time, it appears the exhaustion of IPv4 address
space will occur before significant IPv6 adoption.
Curran's "A Transition Plan for IPv6" [RFC5211] proposes a three-
phase progression:
Preparation Phase (current): characterized by pilot use of IPv6,
primarily through transition mechanisms defined in RFC 4213, and
planning activities.
Transition Phase (2010 through 2011): characterized by general
availability of IPv6 in provider networks which SHOULD be native
IPv6; organizations SHOULD provide IPv6 connectivity for their
Internet-facing servers, but SHOULD still provide IPv4-based
services via a separate service name.
Post-Transition Phase (2012 and beyond): characterized by a
preponderance of IPv6-based services and diminishing support for
IPv4-based services.
In each of these phases, the coexistence problem and solution space
has a different focus:
Preparation Phase: Coexistence tools are needed to facilitate early
adopters by removing impediments to IPv6 deployment, and to assure
that nothing is lost by adopting IPv6, in particular that the IPv6
adopter has unfettered access to the global IPv4 Internet
regardless of whether they have a global IPv4 address (or any IPv4
address or stack at all.) While it might appear reasonable for
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
the cost and operational burden to be borne by the early adopter,
the shared goal of promoting IPv6 adoption would argue against
that model. Additionally, current IPv4 users should not be forced
to retire or upgrade their equipment and the burden remains on
service providers to carry and route native IPv4.
Transition Phase: While IPv6 adoption can be expected to accelerate,
there will still be a significant portion of the Internet
operating in IPv4-only or preferring IPv4. During this phase the
norm shifts from IPv4 to IPv6, and coexistence tools evolve to
ensure interoperability between domains that may be restricted to
IPv4 or IPv6.
Post-Transition Phase: In this phase, IPv6 is ubiquitous and the
burden of maintaining interoperability shifts to those who choose
to maintain IPv4-only systems. While these systems should be
allowed to live out their economic life cycles, the IPv4-only
legacy users at the edges should bear the cost of coexistence
tools, and at some point service provider networks should not be
expected to carry and route native IPv4 traffic.
The choice between the terms "transition" versus "coexistence" has
engendered long philosophical debate. "Transition" carries the sense
that we are going somewhere, while "coexistence" seems more like we
are sitting somewhere. Historically with IETF, "transition" has been
the term of choice [RFC4213][RFC5211], and the tools for
interoperability have been called "transition mechanisms". There is
some perception or conventional wisdom that adoption of IPv6 is being
impeded by the deficiency of tools to facilitate interoperability of
nodes or networks that are constrained (in some way, fully or
partially) from full operation in one of the address families. In
addition, it is apparent that transition will involve a period of
coexistence; the only real question is how long that will last.
Thus, coexistence is an integral part of the transition plan, not in
conflict with it, but there will be a balancing act. It starts out
being a way for early adopters to easily exploit the bigger IPv4
Internet, and ends up being a way for late/never adopters to hang on
with IPv4 (at their own expense, with minimal impact or visibility to
the Internet). One way to look at solutions is that cost incentives
(both monetary cost and the operational overhead for the end user)
should encourage IPv6 and discourage IPv4. That way natural market
forces will keep the transition moving - especially as the legacy
IPv4-only stuff ages out of use. There will come a time to set a
date after which no one is obligated to carry native IPv4 but it
would be premature to attempt to do so yet. The end goal should not
be to eliminate IPv4 by fiat, but rather render it redundant through
ubiquitous IPv6 deployment. IPv4 may never go away completely, but
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
rational plans should move the costs of maintaining IPv4 to those who
insist on using it after wide adoption of IPv6.
1.5. Expected uses of translation
There are several potential uses of translation. They are all easily
described in terms of "interoperation between a set of systems that
only communicate using IPv4 and a set of systems that only
communicate using IPv6", but the differences at a detail level make
them interesting. At minimum, these include:
o Connection of IPv4-only islands to an IPv6-only network, which
might include
* Connecting a small pool of legacy equipment with a view to
eventual obsolescence
* Connecting a legacy network with a view to eventual transition.
o Connection of IPv6-only islands to an IPv4-only network
o Connecting IPv4-only devices with IPv6-only devices regardless of
network type
o Connections between IPv4-only networks and IPv6-only networks,
especially as a service within a large network such as an
enterprise or ISP network or between peer networks.
1.5.1. Connection of IPv4-only islands to an IPv6-only network
While the basic issue is the same, there are at least two interesting
special cases of this: connecting a small pool of legacy equipment
with a view to eventual obsolescence, and connecting a legacy network
with a view to eventual transition.
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|IPv6| |IPv6| |IPv6| +----------+ |IPv4|
|Host| |Host| |Host| |Translator| |Host|
+--+-+ +--+-+ +--+-+ +-+------+-+ +--+-+
| | | | | |
---+------+------+-----+- -+------+--
Figure 1: Printer pool or other legacy equipment
In the first case, Figure 1, one might have a pool of equipment
(printers, perhaps) that is IPv4-capable, but either the network it
serves or some equipment in that network is IPv6-only. One pools the
IPv4-only devices behind a translator, which enables IPv6-only
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
systems to connect to the IPv4-only equipment. If the network is
dual stack and only some of the equipment is IPv6-only, the
translator should be a function of a router, and the router should
provide normal IPv4 routing services as well as IPv6->IPv4
translation.
----------
/// \\\
// IPv6 \\ 192.168.1.0/24
// ISP \\ +------+2001:db8:0:1::0/64
|/ \| | +---------------
| Allocates | | |
| 2001:db8::/60 to | |CPE |192.168.2.0/24
| Customer | |Router|2001:db8:0:2::0/64
| +--+ +---------------
| Doesn't know it, | | |
| but sees customer | | |192.168.3.0/24
|\ IPv4 as /| | |2001:db8:0:3::0/64
\\2001:db8::a.b.c.d // | +---------------
\\ // +------+
\\\ ///
---------- LIR prefix is 2001:db8::0/96
Figure 2: Customer dual stack network
Figure 2 creates transition options to a customer network connected
to an IPv6-only ISP, or some equivalent relationship. The customer
might internally be using traditional IPv4 with NAT services, and the
ISP might change its connection to an IPv6-only network and encourage
it to transition. If the ISP assigns a /60 prefix to a SOHO, for
example, the CPE router in the SOHO could distribute several dual
stack subnets internally, one for wireless and one for each of
several fixed LANs (the entertainment system, his office, her office,
etc). One of the /64 prefixes would be dedicated to representing the
SOHO's IPv4 addresses in the ISP or the IPv4 network beyond it, and
the other prefixes for the various internal subnets. Internally, the
subnets might carry prefix pairs 192.168.n.0/24 and 2001:db8:0.n::/64
for n in 1..15 (1..0xF), and externally might appear as 2001:db8:0:
n::/64 for the IPv6 subnets and 2001:db8::192.168.n.0/120 for the
IPv4 devices. Note that to connect to an IPv4-only network beyond,
RFC 1918 addresses would have to be statefully mapped using
traditional IPv4 mechanisms somewhere; if this is done by the ISP,
collusion on address mapping is required, and the case in
Section 1.5.4 is probably a better choice.
In this environment, the key issue is that one wants a prefix that
enables the entire [RFC1918] address space to be embedded in a single
/64 prefix, with the assumption that any routing structure behind the
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
translator is managed by IPv4 routing.
1.5.2. Connection of IPv6-only islands to an IPv4-only network
To be completed
1.5.3. Connecting IPv4-only devices with IPv6-only devices
To be completed
1.5.4. ISP-supported connections between IPv4-only networks and IPv6-
only networks
In this case (see Figure 3) we presume that a service provider or
equivalent is offering a service in a network in which IPv4 routing
is not supported, but customers are allocated relatively large pools
of general IPv6 addresses, suitable for clients of IPv4 or IPv6
hosts, and relatively small pools of addresses mapped to global IPv4
addresses that are intended to be accessible to IPv4 peers and
clients through translation. Presumably, there are a number of such
customers, and the administration wishes to use normal routing to
manage the issues.
As a carrier offering, there is also a need for stateless
translation, to accomplish two things: the ability to use multiple
translators in parallel without having to maintain state among them,
and to minimize the software overhead on the translator for systems
that communicate regularly. There may also be stateful translation,
the purpose of which is temporary connections between systems that do
so only occasionally.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
-------- --------
// IPv4 \\ // IPv6 \\
/ Domain \ / Domain \
/ +----+ +--+ \
| |XLAT| |S3| | Sn: Servers
| +--+ +----+ +--+ | Hn: Clients
| |S1| +----+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ | XLAT: translator
\ +--+ +----+ |H3| / DNS: DNS Server
\ |H1| / \ +--+ /
\ +--+ / \ /
/ \ / \
/ +----+ \
| +--+ |XLAT| +--+ |
| |S2| +----+ |S4| |
| +--+ +----+ +--+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ |
\ |H2| +----+ |H4| /
\ +--+ / \ +--+ /
\\ // \\ //
-------- --------
Figure 3: Service provider translation with multiple interchange
points
Since [RFC4291] specifies that routable IPv6 prefixes are 64 bits or
shorter apart from host routes, one wishes to allocate each customer
a /64 mapped to a few IPv4 addresses and a shorter prefix for his
general use. The customer's CPE advertises the two prefixes into the
IPv6 routing domain to attract relevant traffic. The translator
advertises the mapped equivalent of an IPv4 default route into the
IPv6 domain to attract all other traffic to it, for translation into
the IPv4 routing domain. It also advertises an appropriate IPv4
prefix aggregating the mapped prefixes into the IPv4 domain to
attract traffic intended for these customers.
In this case, the LIR prefix MUST be within /32../63; a /64 puts the
entire IPv4 address space into the host part, which is equivalent to
the case in Section 1.5.1, and a prefix shorter than /32 wastes space
with no redeeming argument. In general, the LIR prefix should be 64
bits less the length of IPv4 prefixes it allocates to its IPv4-mapped
customers. For example, if it is allocating a mapped IPv4 /24 to
each customer, the LIR prefix used for mapping between IPv4 and IPv6
addresses should be a /40, and the least significant bits in the IPv4
address form the host part of the address.
Note that the significant difference between doing this between
specific networks and between "the IPv4 Internet" and "the IPv6
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Internet" is primarily in the Advertised IPv4 Prefix and the LIR
Prefix. Between specific networks, or between a specific IPv6
network and the general IPv4 network, the translators and the DNS
server are operated by the same operator, and as a result the IPv6
network is likely to use the same Advertised IPv4 Prefix and the same
LIR prefix. Between general networks, they may have different
operators or the same operator may have differing requirements. As
result, they will use different Advertised IPv4 Prefixes and LIR
prefixes. The algorithm, however, is the same.
2. Framework
Having laid out the preferred transition model and the options for
implementing it (Section 1.1), defined terms (Section 1.2),
considered the requirements (Section 1.3), considered the transition
model (Section 1.4), and considered the kinds of networks the
facility would support (Section 1.5), we now turn to a framework for
IPv4/IPv6 translation. This framework has three main parts:
o The recommended address format
o The functional components of a translation solution, which include
* A DNS Translator,
* An optional stateless translator, or/and
* An optional stateful translator.
o The operational characteristics of the solution.
2.1. Translation Scenario and Operation Mode
In this document, we only discuss the scenario:
Connecting an IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet, including
(1) An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet.
(2) The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network.
2.1.1. Translation Model
The translation model is shown in the following figure.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
-------- --------
// IPv4 \\ // IPv6 \\
/ Domain \ / Domain \
/ +----+ +--+ \
| |XLAT| |S2| | Sn: Servers
| +--+ +----+ +--+ | Hn: Clients
| |S1| +----+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ | XLAT: V4/V6 Translator
\ +--+ +----+ |H2| / DNS: DNS Server
\ |H1| / \ +--+ /
\\ +--+ // \\ //
-------- --------
Figure 4: Translation Model
2.1.2. Operation Mode of the Translator
There are two translation modes: stateless translation and stateful
translation. For the stateless translation, the translation
information is carried in the address itself, permitting both
IPv4->IPv6 and IPv6->IPv4 sessions establishment. For the stateful
translation, the translation state is maintained between IPv4
address/port pairs and IPv6 address/port pairs, enabling IPv6 systems
to open sessions with IPv4 systems.
In order to perform the required function, the translator needs to
represent the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet and the IPv6
addresses in the IPv4 Internet.
For the representation of the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet,
both stateless and stateful translation schemes use the same method,
i.e. embedding the original IPv4 address in the IPv6 address.
For the representation of the IPv6 addresses in the IPv4 Internet,
the stateless and stateful translation schemes use different methods.
(1) For the stateless translation, a subset of IPv6 address can be
defined by embedding the original IPv4 address in the IPv6 address.
The original IPv4 address will serve as the IPv6 representation in
the IPv4 land.
(2) For the stateful translation, representing arbitrary IPv6
addresses in the IPv4 Internet requires some form of translation
state that will define the mapping between the original IPv6 address
and its representation in the IPv4 land.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
2.2. Embedded Address Format
Embedding IPv4 address in IPv6 address (defined as IPv4-embedded IPv6
address) will be formed by concatenating a prefix to the IPv4 address
and optionally a suffix. The prefix is called the PREFIX and the
suffix is called SUFFIX. The resulting IPv6 representation is
depicted in the figure below.
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 127
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| PREFIX | IPv4 addr | SUFFIX |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|<--- network part ---->|<--- host part --->|
Figure 5: Embedded Address Format
For the representation of the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet in
both stateless and stateful modes, the PREFIX is advertised in the
IPv6 network by the translator, and packets addressed to this PRFIX
will be routed to the translator. This PREFIX is configured for each
translator, and DNS ALG.
For the representation of the IPv6 addresses in the IPv4 Internet in
the stateless mode, more specifics (defined as IVI6) inside this
PREFIX are advertised in the ISP's IPv6 network by the CPE routers,
and packets addressed to the more specifcs inside this PREFIX will be
routed to the IPv6 end systems. This PREFIX is not used for the
representation of the IPv6 addresses in the IPv4 Internet in the
stateless mode.
As shown in Figure 5, the embedded address format has three
components:
bits 0..n-1 (PREFIX): An LIR-specified prefix, either 32..63 bits
long or 96 bits long,
bits n..n+31 An embedded IPv4 address. Except in the case of a 96
bit prefix, this address intentionally straddles the boundary
between [RFC4291]'s 64 bit "subnet" locator and its 64 bit host
identifier. The intention is that the /64 be used in routing and
the bits in the host part be used for host identification as
described in the address architecture.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
bits n+32..127 (SUFFIX): Entirely zero; note that if n=96, this is
null.
The selection of the PREFIX, the prefix length and SUFFIX is
discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1. LIR prefix versus Well-Known prefix
2.2.1.1. Stateless mode
2.2.1.1.1. IPv6 Routing system scalability
In the stateless mode, the more specifics inside the IPv4-embedded
IPv6 address block are used to represent the IPv6 end systems,
therefore the LIR prefix should be used. The reason is that the LIR
prefix can be aggregated in the ISP's border routers and will not
affect the global IPv6 routing system. On the other hand, if the
Well-Known prefix is used, the global IPv4 routing table will be
inserted into the global IPv6 routing system, which is known to be a
very bad idea.
In the stateless mode, it is possible to use LIR prefix to represent
the IPv6 addresses in the IPv4 Internet and use Well-Known prefix to
represent the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet. However, this is
also a bad idea. The reason is that there will be two possible IPv6
addresses to represent a single IPv4 host, i.e. if the IPv4 address
is used by a host in the IPv4 Internet, a Well-Known prefix should be
used; if the IPv4 address (as IVI6) is used by a host in the IPv6
Internet, a LIR prefix should be used. The IVI6 hosts must know
which one to use in order to communicate with that host. However, if
the LIR prefix is used in both representations, this problem is
solved by the "more specific win" routing principle.
The potential leakage of the IPv6 more specifics introduced by using
LIR prefix could be controlled by ISP's general routing practice,
since this specific is the same compared with other more specifics
inside ISP's autonomous system.
2.2.1.1.2. Referral support
For the referral support in the stateless mode, only the IVI6 hosts
use LIR prefix to represent IPv4 addresses in IPv6 and the IVI6 hosts
know the PREFIX, therefore, the IVI6 hosts could pass the original
IPv4 addresses to the other hosts rather than mapped form and the
referral support is the same as in the dual-stack case.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
2.2.1.1.3. Native connectivity preference in communications involving
dual stack nodes
In the stateless mode, the IVI6 hosts are IPv6 single-stack host,
therefore, the native connectivity preference can be achieve
automatically.
2.2.1.1.4. DNS ALG configuration
For the DNS ALG configuration in the stateless mode, the IVI6 hosts
know the PREFIX, therefore, DNS ALG can be implemented in the end-
system without additional information.
2.2.1.1.5. Support for multiple translators
Support for multiple translators in the stateless mode, either LIR or
suffix can be used to identify different translators.
2.2.1.2. Stateful mode
2.2.1.2.1. IPv6 Routing system scalability
In the stateful mode, it is possible to either use LIR prefix or
Well-Known prefix to represent the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6
Internet. If the LIR prefix is used, the protential leakge of the
IPv6 more specifics may happen. This can be filtered at the ISP's
border routers via manual configuration. If the Well-Known prefix is
used, the configuration could be simplier since it is the unique
Well-Known prefix.
2.2.1.2.2. Referral support
This section analyzes the impact of the prefix type selected for
representing the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet in the referral
operations.
A referral operation is when a host A passes the IP address of a Host
B to a third Host C as application data. The host Host C will then
initiate a communication towards the Host B using the IP address
received. This is not a rare operation in some type of applications,
such as VoIP or peer-to-peer applications.
All the scenarios where Host A and Host C are in different IP
version, they require a specific ALG, since the IP address
information contained as application data must be translated, in
order to be meaningful a the receiver.
A general observation about these scenarios is that in the case a
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Well-Known prefix is used, it would be possible for the ALG to
identify the IPv6 addresses containing an embedded IPv4 address and
translate it, cause they could identify the Well-Known prefix and
know that are not general use IPv6 addresses. If the PREFIX is a LIR
prefix, it may be possible for the ALG to translate the address in
the referral, as long as the translator is configured to know that
this specific prefix is unused to map IPv4 addresses. So, a Well-
Known prefix is more likely to work with referral in the case that
ALG is needed than the LIR prefix.
2.2.1.2.3. Native connectivity preference in communications involving
dual stack nodes
When dual stack nodes are involved in the communication, the
potential issue is that they prefer translated connectivity over the
native connectivity. There are multiple ways to try to deal with
this issue.
Communication initiated from an IPv6-only node towards a dual stack
node: In this case, the IPv6 only node will query for the FQDN of the
dual stack node. The DNS ALG function will try first to get the AAAA
RR. Since there is one available, it will return it and no AAAA RR
will be synthesized from the A RR of the dual stack node. However,
it should be noted that the DNS64 must first try to get the real AAAA
RR before starting the synthesis, if not, it may result in the
aforementioned problem.
Communication initiated from a dual stack node toward an IPv4 only
node: Nodes that have both IPv6 and IPv4 connectivity and are
configured with an address for a DNS ALG as their resolving
nameserver may receive responses containing synthetic AAAA resource
records. If the node prefers IPv6 over IPv4, using the addresses in
the synthetic AAAA RRs means that the node will attempt to
communicate through the translator mechanism first, and only fall
back to native IPv4 connectivity if connecting through translator
fails (if the application tries the full set of destination
addresses). In order to the node prefers native connectivity, we can
configure the PREFIX in the RFC3484 policy table. If a Well-Known
prefix is used, it can be configured in the default policy table. If
we use a LIR prefix, we need a mean to properly configure the policy
table, which is not currently available (only manual configuration is
currently defined) (see [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] for more on
this topic).
2.2.1.2.4. DNS ALG configuration
The DNS ALG function can be placed either in the DNS server or in the
end host. In order to synthesize AAAA RR, the DNS ALG function needs
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
to know the PREFIX. In the case that a Well-Known prefix is used,
the PREFIX information can be hardcoded in the DNS ALG code,
requiring no additional tools for learning it. In the case that a
LIR prefix is used, the DNS ALG needs to discover the PREFIX
information. In the case that the DNS ALG is located in the servers,
it may be a viable option to manually configure the PREFIX in the DNS
ALG for a few servers. However, in the case the the DNS ALG is
located in the hosts, the manual option seems inconvenient and
alternative automatic means need to be provisioned. Moreover, since
this information is used for DNSSEC operations, the mechanism to
configure the PREFIX need to be secure. The result is that the LIR
prefix option requires more tools than the Well-Known prefix.
2.2.1.2.5. Support for multiple translators
This issue is somehow orthogonal on whether the prefix is Well-Known
or LIR. In both cases, it is possible to use a single prefix for
multiple translators or different prefixes for different translators.
In any case, this would be achieved by inserting (or not) some subnet
bits between the prefix and the embedded IPv4 address that would be
used to identify the translator box. This issue does have
implications on some of the different issues considered before. In
particular, if a per translator prefix is used, then there is the
need to configure the prefix in the DNS ALG, so the non configuration
feature of the Well-Known prefix is no longer achieved.
2.2.2. Prefix length
One issue that is worth considering is the one related to IPv6
address consumption. In particular, depending on the selected prefix
length, IPv6 address consumption can become an issue. If we consider
the case of the Well-Know prefix, the prefix would be allocated by
IANA for this particular purpose. As such, it seems reasonable that
a short prefix can be obtained for this. Requesting for a /24 or
even a few bits shorter seems feasible. The potential benefit of
this is that IPv4 prefixes can be represented as IPv6 prefixes that
are shorter than 64 bits. This would result in routing based on the
upper 64 bits, which is compatible with current IPv6 practices. For
instance, if we use a /24 for the Well-Know prefix, an IPv4 /24 would
result in an IPv6 /48, which seems somehow equivalent from the
routing perspective.
On the other hand, if we go for the LIR prefix option, then the
prefix must come out of the IPv6 allocation for the site running the
translator. If the site running the translator is an ISP, then
probably the allocation of the ISP is a /32 or shorter, so, it may be
possible for the ISP to allocate a somehow short prefix for this,
maybe a /40. However, if the translator is run by an end site, which
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
normal allocation is a /48, then the LIR prefix for the translator
should be much longer than that, possibly a /56. So, in the case the
site needs to route based on the IPv4 prefix embedded in the IPv6
address (e.g. in order to access to different parts of the IPv4 space
through different routes), then it is likely that it will need to
route on the lower 64 bits of the IPv6 address.
According to current specifications, routers must handle routes
containing prefixes of any valid length, from 0 to 128. However,
some users have reported that routers exhibit worse performance when
routing using long prefixes, in particular when using prefixes longer
than 80 bits. This implies that using prefixes shorter than that
would result in better performance in some cases.
2.2.3. Suffix
In the current implementation of the stateless mode, the suffix is
entirely zero. For the stateful mode when using Well-Known prefix,
the suffix can be used to represent different NAT boxes.
2.2.4. Recommdations
For the PREFIX selection, we recommand to use LIR prefix. For the
stateful translator, the Well-Known prefix can be used.
For the prefix length selection, there are some obvious values that
might be popular, including /40, /44, and /96, but there is no
requirement than any of them be used; this is left to the operator's
discretion.
For the SUFFIX selection, it is is entirely zero at this time.
However, it could be used for the future extension of the translation
functions.
2.3. Translation components
As noted in Section 1.5,translation involves several components. An
IPv4 client or peer must be able to determine the address of its
server by obtaining an A record from DNS even if the server is IPv6-
only - only has an IPv6 stack, or is in an IPv6-only network.
Similarly, an IPv6 client or peer must be able to determine the
address of its server by obtaining an AAAA record from DNS even if
the server is IPv4-only - only has an IPv4 stack, or is in an IPv4-
only network. Given the address, the client/peer must be able to
initiate a connection to the server/peer, and the server/peer must be
able to reply. It would be very nice if this scaled to the size of
regional networks with straightforward operational practice.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
To that end, we describe four subsystems:
o A Domain Name System Translator
o A stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator
o A stateful IPv4/IPv6 translator
o Translators for some applications
2.3.1. DNS Translator
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-dns64] describes the mechanisms by which a DNS
Translator is intended to operate. It is designed to operate on the
basis of known but fixed state: the resource records, and therefore
the names and addresses, that it translates are known to network
elements outside of the data plane translator, but the process of
serving them to applications does not interact with the data plane
translator in any way.
There are at least three possible implementations of a DNS
Translator:
Static records: One could literally program DNS with corresponding A
and AAAA records. This is most appropriate for stub services such
as access to a legacy printer pool.
Dynamic Translation of static records: In more general operation,
the expected behavior is for the application to request both A and
AAAA records, and for an A record to be (retrieved and) translated
by the DNS translator if and only if no reachable AAAA record
exists. This has ephemeral issues with cached translations, which
can be dealt with by caching only the source record and forcing it
to be translated whenever accessed.
Static or Dynamic Translation of Dynamic DNS records: In Dynamic DNS
usage, a system could potentially report the translation of a name
using a Mapped IPv4 Address, or using both a Mapped IPv4 Address
and some other address. The DNS translator has several options;
it could store a AAAA record for the Mapped IPv4 Address and
depend on translation of that for A records inline, it could store
both an A and a AAAA record, or (when there is another IPv6
address as well which is stored as the AAAA record) it could store
only the A record.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
2.3.2. Stateless Translation - IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
[I-D.baker-behave-v4v6-translation] describes and defines the
behavior of a stateless translator. This is an optional facility;
one could implement or deploy only the stateful mode described in
Section 2.3.3, at the cost of being able to have systems with IPv6
addresses that are not embedded to IPv4 addresses access IPv4 servers
and peers. Stateless translation enables IPv4-only clients and peers
to initiate connections to IPv6-only servers or peers equipped with
IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses, as described in Figure 3. It also
enables scalable coordination of IPv4-only stub networks or ISP IPv6-
only networks as described in Figure 2.
In addition, since [RFC3484]address selection would select a IPv4-
embedded IPv6 address when it is available, stateless translation
enables IPv6 clients and peers with Mapped IPv4 Addresses to open
connections with IPv4 servers and peers in a scalable fashion,
supporting asynchronous routes.
2.3.3. Stateful translation - IPv4-related IPv6 address
[I-D.baker-behave-v4v6-translation] also describes and defines the
behavior of the data plane component of a stateful translator.
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-nat64] describes the management of the state
tables necessitated by stateful translation. Like stateful
translation, this is an optional facility; one could implement or
deploy only the stateful mode described in Section 2.3.2, at the cost
of IPv4 access to IPv6-only servers and peers, the ability to use
multiple translators interchangeably, and some level of scalability.
Stateful translation is defined to enable IPv6 clients and peers
without Mapped IPv4 Addresses to connect to IPv4-only servers and
peers.
Stateful translation could be defined to enable IPv4 clients and
peers to connect to IPv6-only servers and peers without Mapped IPv4
Addresses. This is far more complex, however, and is out of scope in
the present work.
2.3.4. Translation gateway technologies
In addition, some applications require special support. An example
is FTP. FTP's active mode doesn't work well across NATs without
extra support such as SOCKS. Across NATs, it generally uses passive
mode. However, the designers of FTP inexplicably wrote different and
incompatible passive mode implementations for IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
Hence, either they need to fix FTP, or a translator must be written
for the application. Other applications may be similarly broken.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
As a general rule, a simple operational recommendation will work
around many application issues, which is that there should be a
server in each domain or an instance of the server should have an
interface in each domain. For example, an SMTP MTA may be confused
by finding an IPv6 address in its EHLO when it is connected to using
IPv4 (or vice versa), but would perfectly well if it had an interface
in both the IPv4 and IPv6 domains and was used as an application
layer bridge between them.
2.4. Translation in operation
Operationally, there are two ways that translation could be used - as
a permanent solution making transition "the other guy's problem", and
as a temporary solution for a new part of one's network while
bringing up IPv6 services in the remaining parts of one's network.
The delay could, for example, be caused by contract cycles that
prevent IPv6 deployment during the life of the contract. We
obviously recommend the latter. For the IPv4 parts of the network,
[RFC4213]'s recommendation holds: bringing IPv6 up in those domains,
moving production to it, and then taking down the now-unnecessary
IPv4 service when economics warrant remains the least risk approach
to transition.
----------------------
////// \\\\\\
/// IPv4 or Dual Stack \\\
|| +----+ Routing +-----+ ||
| |IPv4| |IPv4+| |
| |Host| |IPv6 | |
|| +----+ |Host | ||
\\\ +-----+ ///
\\\\\+----+ +---+ +----+ +----+/////
|XLAT|-|DNS|-|SMTP|-|XLAT|
| |-| |-|MTA |-| |
/////+----+ +---+ +----+ +----+\\\\\
/// \\\
|| +-----+ +----+ ||
| |IPv4+| |IPv6| |
| |IPv6 | |Host| |
|| |Host | +----+ ||
\\\ +-----+ IPv6-only Routing ///
\\\\\\ //////
----------------------
Figure 6: Translation Operational Model
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
During the coexistence phase, as shown in Figure 6, one expects a
combination of hosts - IPv6-only gaming devices and handsets, older
computer operating systems that are IPv4-only, and modern mainline
operating systems that support both. One also expects a combination
of networks - dual stack devices operating in single stack networks
are effectively single stack, whether that stack is IPv4 or IPv6, as
the other isn't providing communications services.
2.4.1. Impact Outside the Network Layer
The potential existence of IP/ICMP translators is already taken care
of from a protocol perspective in [RFC2460]. However, an IPv6 node
that wants to be able to use translators needs some additional logic
in the network layer.
The network layer in an IPv6-only node, when presented by the
application with either an IPv4 destination address or an IPv4-mapped
IPv6 destination address, is likely to drop the packet and return
some error message to the application. In order to take advantage of
translators such a node should instead send an IPv6 packet where the
destination address is the IPv4-mapped address and the source address
is the node's temporarily assigned IPv4-translated address. If the
node does not have a temporarily assigned IPv4-translated address it
should acquire one using mechanisms that are not discussed in this
document.
Note that the above also applies to a dual IPv4/IPv6 implementation
node which is not configured with any IPv4 address.
There are no extra changes needed to applications to operate through
a translator beyond what applications already need to do to operate
on a dual node. The applications that have been modified to work on
a dual node already have the mechanisms to determine whether they are
communicating with an IPv4 or an IPv6 peer. Thus if the applications
need to modify their behavior depending on the type of the peer, such
as ftp determining whether to fall back to using the PORT/PASV
command when EPRT/EPSV fails (as specified in [RFC2428]), they
already need to do that when running on dual nodes and the presence
of translators does not add anything. For example, when using the
socket API [RFC3493] the applications know that the peer is IPv6 if
they get an AF_INET6 address from the name service and the address is
not an IPv4-mapped address (i.e., IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED returns
false). If this is not the case, i.e., the address is AF_INET or an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, the peer is IPv4.
One way of viewing the translator, which might help clarify why
applications do not need to know that a translator is used, is to
look at the information that is passed from the transport layer to
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
the network layer. If the transport passes down an IPv4 address
(whether or not is in the IPv4-mapped encoding) this means that at
some point there will be IPv4 packets generated. In a dual node the
generation of the IPv4 packets takes place in the sending node. In
an IPv6-only node conceptually the only difference is that the IPv4
packet is generated by the translator - all the information that the
transport layer passed to the network layer will be conveyed to the
translator in some form. That form just "happens" to be in the form
of an IPv6 header.
2.5. Unsolved problems
Just say "multicast"; this framework could support multicast, but at
this point does not. This is a place for future work.
As noted, IPv4 client/peer access to IPv6 servers and peers lacking
Mapped IPv4 Addresses is not solved.
Interoperation between IPv4-only clients and IPv6-only clients is not
supported, and is not believed to be needed.
3. IANA Considerations
This memo requires no parameter assignment by the IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: This section will have served its purpose if it
correctly tells IANA that no new assignments or registries are
required, or if those assignments or registries are created during
the RFC publication process. From the author's perspective, it may
therefore be removed upon publication as an RFC at the RFC Editor's
discretion.
4. Security Considerations
One "security" issue has been raised, with an address format that was
considered and rejected for that reason. At this point, the editor
knows of no other security issues raised by the address format that
are not already applicable to the addressing architecture in general.
5. Acknowledgements
This is under development by a large group of people. Those who have
posted to the list during the discussion include Andrew Sullivan,
Andrew Yourtchenko, Brian Carpenter, Dan Wing, Ed Jankiewicz, Fred
Baker, Hiroshi Miyata, Iljitsch van Beijnum, John Schnizlein, Kevin
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Yin, Magnus Westerlund, Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Margaret Wasserman,
Masahito Endo, Phil Roberts, Philip Matthews, Remi Denis-Courmont,
Remi Despres, and Xing Li.
The appendix is largely derived from Hiroshi Miyata's analysis, which
is in turn based on documents by many of those just named.
Ed Jankiewicz described the transition plan.
The definition of a "Local Internet Registry" came from the
Wikipedia, and was slightly expanded to cover the present case.
(EDITOR'S QUESTION: Would it be better to describe this as an
"operator-defined prefix"?)
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., Beijnum, I., Sullivan, A., and
M. Endo, "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-bagnulo-behave-dns64-01 (work in progress),
November 2008.
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-nat64]
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "NAT64: Network
Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4
Servers", draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-02 (work in
progress), November 2008.
[I-D.baker-behave-v4v6-translation]
Baker, F., "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm",
draft-baker-behave-v4v6-translation-01 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.baker-behave-ivi]
Li, X., Bao, C., Baker, F., and K. Yin, "IVI Update to
SIIT and NAT-PT", draft-baker-behave-ivi-01 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[I-D.durand-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
Durand, A., Droms, R., Haberman, B., and J. Woodyatt,
"Dual-stack lite broadband deployments post IPv4
exhaustion", draft-durand-softwire-dual-stack-lite-01
(work in progress), November 2008.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-addcon]
Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., Chown, T., Bonness, O., and C.
Hahn, "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations",
draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[I-D.miyata-v6ops-snatpt]
Miyata, H. and M. Endo, "sNAT-PT: Simplified Network
Address Translation - Protocol Translation",
draft-miyata-v6ops-snatpt-02 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[I-D.xli-behave-ivi]
Li, X., Chen, M., Bao, C., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "Prefix-
specific and Stateless Address Mapping (IVI) for IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", draft-xli-behave-ivi-01 (work
in progress), February 2009.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2428] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
February 2000.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
[RFC3142] Hagino, J. and K. Yamamoto, "An IPv6-to-IPv4 Transport
Relay Translator", RFC 3142, June 2001.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3879] Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4864] Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
May 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to
Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007.
[RFC5211] Curran, J., "An Internet Transition Plan", RFC 5211,
July 2008.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
March 2008.
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation February 2009
Authors' Addresses
Fred Baker (editor)
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4257
Fax: +1-413-473-2403
Email: fred@cisco.com
Xing Li (editor)
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Congxiao Bao (editor)
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Baker, et al. Expires August 25, 2009 [Page 32]